Oakland City Council and Rent Program Take Action as it Concerns Owner Move-In Evictions

Recently, I was co-counsel in an owner move-in eviction lawsuit. In contesting the eviction, I discovered ambiguities in or loopholes in the law. I brought these ambiguities to the attention of city council members and, together with other public comment, the Oakland Rent Program members met, proposed, and voted in amendments to the Just Cause Regulations on March 23, 2017. 

To evict a tenant in Oakland, the landlord/owner must provide tenants with a Notice to Terminate Tenancy. In addition to state law notice requirements, there are new notice requirements required relating specifically to Owner Move-In (OMI) evictions. 

Now, Owners conducting OMI evictions must list the following on their Notice to Terminate Tenancy:

8.22.360.A.9(a)(i) “ . . all real property owned by the intended future occupant(s)…”

8.22.360.A.9(a)(iii) “The lawful rent applicable for the unit on the date of the notice.”

8.22.360.A.9(b) “For the purposes of this subdivision (a), real property means a parcel of real estate located in Oakland or elsewhere.”

Previously, landlord’s attorneys argued that only property owned in Oakland was required to be listed. Now, Owners must list ALL real property owned regardless of whether it is located in Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco or even in Arizona!

Secondly, landlord’s attorneys argued that there was no requirement for the intended occupant, if the Owner's relative, to move in within a specific period of time. So, the Owner would evict on the pretext that their child would move in, but they would also argue that the child could move in at any time after the eviction (even if it took 3 years!)

Now, that has changed in the newly adopted Regulations as follows:

8.22.360.B.8(b)(i) "The Owner must file a completed certificate of an OMI eviction to the rent program within 30-days after a tenant vacates a unit.

8.22.360.B.8(b)(ii) “The Owner or the designated qualifying relative must move in to the unit within three (3) months of the Tenant’s vacation of the unit.”

8.22.360.B.8(b)(iii) “…the Owner must submit a certificate that the Owner or the Owner’s qualifying relative continued to reside or not reside in the unit as a principal residence” and must submit proof of residence in the unit.

The City developed the Rent Adjustment Program, in part, to shield Tenants from unfair evictions. I commend the City Council and the Rent Program for taking notice of public comment and revising the regulations to ensure that both the intent as well as the letter of the law is followed. Hear! Hear!

Lawsuit Filed After Four People Die in Deadly Fire in Oakland

See TV news report, "Tenants File Suit After Fatal W Oakland Fire."

For More About Attorney Erickson

Check out my FACEBOOK page!

So Tell Me, Have You Ever Been Evicted?

Invariably, when filing out a rental application, one is asked, “Have you ever been evicted?”

Just as there are credit reporting agencies such as EquiFax to scour through public records looking for money judgments, so too are there agencies who send people to courthouses to research eviction records. Such companies as First Advantage Corporation and Core Logic maintain a database of tenant evictions often regardless of whether the case was settled, dismissed, or won by the tenant. Generally, evictions are on a tenant “blacklist” for seven years.

An eviction on a tenant’s record can preclude a rental applicant, even if they won the eviction lawsuit, from leasing new housing, particularly in the Bay area’s hot rental market where prospective applicants are competing to lease an apartment.

Before January 1, 2017, an eviction complaint filed with the court was sealed from public view for 60-days. When the lawsuit was filed, the court clerk sent a letter to the tenant noting the 60-day restriction. However, because of unfair tenant blacklists and the fact that the courts, overburdened with cases and underfunded, are unable to quickly move eviction proceedings to conclusion within the first 60-days after the eviction lawsuit was filed, a new law was enacted this year.

As of January 1, 2017, eviction records are masked from public view unless the landlord won the eviction lawsuit within 60-days or if the landlord obtained a judgment in the eviction proceeding after 60-days of filing the complaint with narrow exceptions. The Nolo Press article, “California Tenants Protected When They Win Eviction Lawsuits” provides an excellent recap of the new law.

If you have ever gone through an eviction proceeding in the past, even if you won or settled the case or the case was dismissed, it would be a good idea to check the court records yourself to see if your record is available for public view. If it is available for public view, you may want to retain an attorney to “seal” the records from public view if you can show that you have been or will be negatively impacted by the eviction record.

You can also purchase your rental record background report from First Advantage Corporation (who acquired UD Registry in 2004) and competitive entities to see if the damage has already been done and if you need to have the eviction removed from your record. But beware, removal of eviction information from your record can be another major battle!

Does Code Enforcement Have Any Teeth?

While code enforcement in the City of Oakland and in Contra Costa County may inspect and issue notices of building code violations, unless these notices are actually "enforced," the building code violations may remain unabated leading to uninhabitable conditions for renters and, worse, demolition of buildings and death through fire.

Oakland 4-Alarm Fire

More about code enforcement and relocation benefits in Oakland is described in this blog article. Click here.

And for code enforcement in Contra Costa County, click here to review the municipal code and the remedies that can be mandated.